Conrad Murray Trial - Day Twenty

Dr. White based his entire testimony on a conversation he had with Dr. Murray and then tailored his testimony to the urine lab results which is more in line with his story due to less propofol found in the urine content. When Dr. White's written report was submitted the state objected to it because it included statements by Dr. Murray who had changed his story to LE and because it was hearsay. Dr. White was attempting to get this hearsay in through the backdoor and the Judge ruled he could not. Court documents follow the Dr. Shafer pic. Dr. White's first mistake was relying on Dr. Murray as a source for his testimony. He has already been proven a liar IMO.

Blood level results are more reliable and the propofol levels are much higher and does not jive with Dr. Murray just giving 25mgs or even if MJ allegedly self-injected 25mgs. The blood level results indicated propofol in the amount of 40x more than what Dr. Murray states so where did the rest of the propofol come from; it had to be drip to reach those levels. Dr. White lied by omission. I found it strange that Dr. White would also claim that the spike was not long enough to fit in the contraption I believe Dr. Murray rigged. Did he miss Dr. Shafer's demo because he certainly showed it would fit with no problem. He put the spike in the propofol bottle through the cut slit in the bag with the propofol bottle in it not from the bottom. The bag was nothing more than a holder. Here is a pic of Shafer's demo:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_19165362


http://ww2.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/kusbj2jfzfjuhcqf1jb2znv0/1448500652.pdf
 
Morning n/t!

I am not that versed on cell phone data but I do believe I have read in other cases where the phone companies can retrieve such data.

imo


IIRC, ocean, you are right. There was extensive telecommunication testimony during the long Bradley Cooper (found guilty of 1st Deg. Murder for murdering his wife -- Cary, NC). He was a telly-com guru who worked for Cisco & had lots of ways to place calls from one phone & let it look like it came from another phone, etc., etc.

The PT called in the super-techies of the phone companies, reading their internal records -- not what one would see on their phone bill -- and which cell towers received-passed, pings, type of call (fax, voice, data, lft. msg. etc., etc.), and they testified all about it, but it gets to be very, very sophisticated (makes medicine look like child's play, almost -- with all due respect to medicine) and was tuff, tuff, dry, dry testimony. But yes, it can be done, but there'e no way IMO that that could be done at this stage in the trial -- it would cause the case to drag out at least another week -- and no discovery, and all that.

(The Cooper case is on WS; Cooper was convicted in May, 2011, so not too far back, FYI.)
icon7.gif
 
CM gave MJ propofol.
CM left the room.
MJ stopped breathing.
CM was not in the room to immediately get him breathing again.
MJ died!

To me, the only thing that matters is:
CM gave MJ IV propofol and then left the room.
MJ died while CM was grossly negligent.

Dr Conrad Murray is on trial for being grossly negligent which led to the death his patient, Michael Jackson.

So, in this case:

It doesn't matter what drugs MJ received from CM or if he took them himself.
CM LEFT the room.

It doesn't matter when MJ received the drugs & then stopped breathing.
CM was NOT in the room.

It doesn't matter where MJ got the drugs or where CM went.
CM left for longer than 2 minutes.

It doesn't matter how MJ got the drugs or how much he received.
CM was hired by MJ to stay and supervise MJ at all times.

Regardless of CM leaving the room, with MJ unattended, with drugs within MJ's reach,
I believe it's impossible that MJ took any meds on his own after CM started administering the propofol.

CM's gross negligence is what killed MJ!

So, WHY is all this time wasted on irrelevent stuff like lab results, drug chemistry, graphs, MJ's drug history, how pressured he was to do the tour, etc etc etc?


And one more somewhat related thang:

If they want to talk about addiction, why not look no farther than that milky-white elephant in the room:

Propofol Addiction

For 80 days straight, propofol. Every night, propofol. That's what CM was hired to do and he knew it. Period. Get & give MJ propofol and to monitor him and manage his growing addiction to the stuff he had to have. Every night. Including Michael's last one.

Grrrrrrrrrrrr.


ETA: (going to Target for a bit -- BRB! Carry on, you smart, smart Sleuthers!)
 
Because...the DT is just looking for ONE juror. There are some people who will be so put off if they even suspect that MJ had a hand (no pun) in this, in any way, shape, or form, that they will refuse to convict.

Which brings me to something else I've been thinking about. If, God forbid, there is a hung jury in this case, it will be seen as a "victory" for the defense. A hung jury is always viewed as a victory for the defense, YET, in my experience, defendants are often convicted the second time around. I think this is due to a number of factors, including that the State has seen all of the defense cards. But I've usually been able to chalk it up to a different defense team the second time. Especially in relatively high profile cases, the defense lawyers in the first trial are usually the best that a defendant can afford.

Which brings me to another lingering question: who is paying Flanagan and Chernoff? Do y'all think they are working pro bono? This is a defense that stays at only the best hotels, has done a boatload of outside testing, etc. And Dr. White...has he disclosed yet what he is being paid? Murray, according to all reports I've read, was deeply in debt. His Las Vegas home was foreclosed, he wasn't paying child support, etc. Where is the money for this fancy-schmancy defense coming from? Murray is running around on weekends getting pedicures and buying $175 ties. None of this makes sense to me.

And, to end this rambling post, if there is (God forbid) a second trial, I doubt Messrs. Chernoff and Flanagan will be around, and the stays at the Ritz Carlton etc. will likely end. Thanks for bearing with me! :)

Thanks for the thoughts, o-o-lawyer -- I think they are spot-on. No gettin' around 'em.

The $$ for his attorneys has been a mystery to me all along. Are those 3 DT guys that altruistic? Has CM declared himself indigent? I wanna know!
 
BBM
Thank you, outofstatelawyer.
I wasn't really expecting an answer to my WHY question... more of a statement actually. :)

I totally agree with your answer & appreciate your explanation as to why the
defense is doing this & what'll happen if CM is found to be (God forbid) not guilty!)

I hope the defense doesn't resort to presenting the jurors with outrageous
lies, like Jose Baez did in the CA Trial. That would really make me sooo :furious: !

Hi, peace - Your worries are good ones. We'll have to wait and see what damage the PT does on their rebuttal. I know I'm am very biased, but this bias is based on watching the testimony pretty closely, and of course to many discussions on here. And, although none of us Sleuthers are on the jury, I think we here know this case pretty darn good, no matter on which side, if any, we are.

The jury can't discuss this daily stuff with each other as we do, or do research like we can as this trial moves along. They must be about to burst with their feelings, questions, and probable confusion. Scary.

As o-o-s-lawyer said, all the DT needs is that one juror who is looking for any excuse to find CM not guilty. There are 12 of them who will decide -- that's a lot of people, IMO, with all kinds of backgrounds and pre-existing views of MD's and pop-singers in general. You can always hang onto one fact or statement for dear life & never be persuaded away from it. Scary.

I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom & doom, but the rubber's really getting ready to meet the road, and the roller-coaster is about to take its last spin around the track. Scary.

I always get a bit carried away at this stage of a trial when I have such strong feelings....

Please excuse the withering rant.
 
@ bordem, There are no facts from this trial that MJ was an addict. The defense TRIED to portray him as an addict based on Dr. Kleine's medical records. Prosecution managed to attack back during cross exam.

DA: "Wld u diagnose MJ as addicted to Demerol based on these (Klein med records)?" Defence expert: "Probably not"

These are some thoughts from someone who's been watching the trial. They are from day 20.

----

We have been told that Dr. White is the last witness to be called by the defense, however, I don’t know if this is true. This is only what the press has reported. The reason I believe we still have some surprises is this:

- We still have the issue of un-reported fingerprints on a saline bag that have been identified but are not anyone that was in the house on the morning/afternoon of June 25th.

- We still have a missing (if it existed) secondary I.V. tubing.

- There is no toxicology for Propofol evident on the autopsy report for the brain, even though an autopsy is recorded as to have been done.

- No one has yet to mention the independent autopsy the Jackson Family ordered.

- There is missing video surveillance and other bodyguards present the early morning of June 25th, 2009 when Michael Jackson arrived home that either were not interviewed or who’s interviews were not recorded.

- There are other discrepancies among the prosecution witnesses that have not been addressed or investigated by the defense (at least that they’ve presented).
 
Well tomorrow should be very interesting.:woohoo::woohoo:

Imo, David Walgren is ready.:rocker:

I refuse to believe there are jurors out there like the Pinellas 12.:furious:

I am going to put my faith in the state and this jury.

I think we are going to see an amazingly clear and well carried out closing argument by the state. I think he will go with common sense based upon the facts entered. I have found Walgren extremely organized and concise.

Hopefully after White finishes testifying it will move quickly and we may have a verdict by this week.

IMO
 
@ bordem, There are no facts from this trial that MJ was an addict. The defense TRIED to portray him as an addict based on Dr. Kleine's medical records. Prosecution managed to attack back during cross exam.

DA: "Wld u diagnose MJ as addicted to Demerol based on these (Klein med records)?" Defence expert: "Probably not"

These are some thoughts from someone who's been watching the trial. They are from day 20.

----
We have been told that Dr. White is the last witness to be called by the defense, however, I don’t know if this is true. This is only what the press has reported. The reason I believe we still have some surprises is this:

- We still have the issue of un-reported fingerprints on a saline bag that have been identified but are not anyone that was in the house on the morning/afternoon of June 25th.

- We still have a missing (if it existed) secondary I.V. tubing.

- There is no toxicology for Propofol evident on the autopsy report for the brain, even though an autopsy is recorded as to have been done.

- No one has yet to mention the independent autopsy the Jackson Family ordered.

- There is missing video surveillance and other bodyguards present the early morning of June 25th, 2009 when Michael Jackson arrived home that either were not interviewed or who’s interviews were not recorded.

- There are other discrepancies among the prosecution witnesses that have not been addressed or investigated by the defense (at least that they’ve presented).

The only one that would testify after White would be Murray. I guess we will have to wait and see if the defense rests after White.

I am not familiar with the identified fingerprint on the saline bag. Who testified to that? I do know some prints on certain items weren't deemed to be AA, CM or MJs. In fact no fingerprints of MJs were found on any of the items. Not the propofol bottles nor the lorazepam bottle.

The IV tubing has been brought up several times. Walgren even asked one witness how easily it would be to curl up in someone's hand to remove it from the scene.

I thought the ME did not test the brain for propofol? So I am not sure what you are referring to but Dr. Shafer said he can determine how much propofol was in the brain by using his computer model based on what was found else where in the body. Maybe he will do that in rebuttal.

The tape isn't missing. LE just copied enough of it to show who was there when MJ arrived back home and you can even see CMs car sitting there waiting for him. I don't see a need for the entire tape be played. It was outside the home from the gate view and MJ was inside by 1:05 am that morning and Murray was still there inside when the EMTs came up to the bedroom. Murray never left the bedroom except to go to the bathroom for 2 minutes.

There will always be discrepancies in eye witness testimony as each person absorbs a situation differently. It is when the stories are exactly the same that the story seems made up. I don't see any discrepancies that would cause the jury pause. It is what they did testify to that matched up with the evidence found that is most important anyway.

IMO
 
Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7299328#post7299328"]
viewpost.gif
[/ame]

I do agree with absolutely everything you have said, Peace.

But for me personally it does matter anytime a victim is blamed for their own death when they are not guilty of anything other than trusting the wrong one.


None of the DT theories make sense to me. They have tried everything in the world to sling mud on MJs grave.


To be able to try to hoodwink this jury with smoke and mirrors just seems so inherently unfair when seeking the truth and true justice.


IMO

----------------------------------------------------------------------

OH I agree that it does matter that MJ is being blamed for his own death.

I just meant that only CM & his gross negligence (prior to, during & after he administered propofol),
can be blamed for why MJ died, regardless of what else may or may not have taken place by MJ.

BBM

Oh, folks - ITA with you both, of course. Here's my question:

We have watched this trial -- possibly some testimonies more than once -- the jury has seen it, in person and up front, of course, but only once.

They have not been able to discuss it amongst themselves or do research like we have. Obviously, I do think they have been paying attention and taking good notes that will probably overlap & fill in each other's gaps when they're in the jury room. And I do think they have been diligent in not talking about it or researching anything. (I have already said as much in another post here, so please excuse the repetitives.)

BUT, do either of you think that all of them are thinking the way peace said above (BBM) and what ocean and I agree, and only that?

Oh, it worries me. Such a pure-azz crapshoot. (I, too, have been disillusioned by the Caylee case and the Jason Young hung jury/mistrial here in Raleigh.) Ouch. Again, not to be gloom & doom, but I worry. This man needs to be put out of business -- jail would be fitting & I think the Judge will send him there, if it's his decision (in California, does the judge do the sentencing??), but that part is becoming less important as the days go by. Let him leave the country -- we don't need him here. Arrrrrrrgggghhhh. Make me feel better, puh-leeze!!
icon9.gif


I hope we will all be yumping for yoy this time tomorrow night!!
icon12.gif
 
Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes
I do agree with absolutely everything you have said, Peace.

But for me personally it does matter anytime a victim is blamed for their own death when they are not guilty of anything other than trusting the wrong one.


None of the DT theories make sense to me. They have tried everything in the world to sling mud on MJs grave.


To be able to try to hoodwink this jury with smoke and mirrors just seems so inherently unfair when seeking the truth and true justice.


IMO

----------------------------------------------------------------------



BBM

Oh, folks - ITA with you both, of course. Here's my question:

We have watched this trial -- possibly some testimonies more than once -- the jury has seen it, in person and up front, of course, but only once.

They have not been able to discuss it amongst themselves or do research like we have. Obviously, I do think they have been paying attention and taking good notes that will probably overlap & fill in each other's gaps when they're in the jury room. And I do think they have been diligent in not talking about it or researching anything. (I have already said as much in another post here, so please excuse the repetitives.)

BUT, do either of you think that all of them are thinking the way peace said above (BBM) and what ocean and I agree, and only that?

Oh, it worries me. Such a pure-azz crapshoot. (I, too, have been disillusioned by the Caylee case and the Jason Young hung jury/mistrial here in Raleigh.) Ouch. Again, not to be gloom & doom, but I worry. This man needs to be put out of business -- jail would be fitting & I think the Judge will send him there, if it's his decision (in California, does the judge do the sentencing??), but that part is becoming less important as the days go by. Let him leave the country -- we don't need him here. Arrrrrrrgggghhhh. Make me feel better, puh-leeze!!
icon9.gif


I hope we will all be yumping for yoy this time tomorrow night!!
icon12.gif

I really think Caylee's case has made many of us shell shocked but when I sit back and try to think rationally..instead of emotionally....these kind of jurors are very rare.

Now we have the ones who let Robert Durst go free because LE could never find the poor victim's head that HE cutoff. That verdict was a doozie too but years ago now and occasionally there have been others.

I really think that Walgren will pull it all together. We may not even know now why he asked a particular question but will know when he brings it up in CA.

I think we are going to see a lot of visuals in his CA. That is a great tool to use and helps the jury to bring everything together cohesively.

Now after watching this case for so long and seeing how the DT has tried to put MJ on trial if I was on that jury by now I would be getting very aggravated that this is the route they are taking. But that is just me. Blaming the victim is a slippery slope. It can help with getting a hung jury or it can backfire big time.

If I was Walgren I would remind them that this isn't the trial of Michael Jackson contrary to the DTs belief but the trial of Conrad Murray.

IMO
 
Dr. White based his entire testimony on a conversation he had with Dr. Murray and then tailored his testimony to the urine lab results which is more in line with his story due to less propofol found in the urine content. When Dr. White's written report was submitted the state objected to it because it included statements by Dr. Murray who had changed his story to LE and because it was hearsay. Dr. White was attempting to get this hearsay in through the backdoor and the Judge ruled he could not. Court documents follow the Dr. Shafer pic. Dr. White's first mistake was relying on Dr. Murray as a source for his testimony. He has already been proven a liar IMO.

Blood level results are more reliable and the propofol levels are much higher and does not jive with Dr. Murray just giving 25mgs or even if MJ allegedly self-injected 25mgs. The blood level results indicated propofol in the amount of 40x more than what Dr. Murray states so where did the rest of the propofol come from; it had to be drip to reach those levels. Dr. White lied by omission. I found it strange that Dr. White would also claim that the spike was not long enough to fit in the contraption I believe Dr. Murray rigged. Did he miss Dr. Shafer's demo because he certainly showed it would fit with no problem. He put the spike in the propofol bottle through the cut slit in the bag with the propofol bottle in it not from the bottom. The bag was nothing more than a holder. Here is a pic of Shafer's demo:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_19165362


http://ww2.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/kusbj2jfzfjuhcqf1jb2znv0/1448500652.pdf


Thanks, Credence -- This is the first time that I have seen the PT's document to preclude White's hearsay testimony.

Good digging on your part for good reading on my part!

This is an amazing team of Sleuthers, I must say again! ...
icon14.gif
 
@ bordem, There are no facts from this trial that MJ was an addict. The defense TRIED to portray him as an addict based on Dr. Kleine's medical records. Prosecution managed to attack back during cross exam.

DA: "Wld u diagnose MJ as addicted to Demerol based on these (Klein med records)?" Defence expert: "Probably not"

These are some thoughts from someone who's been watching the trial. They are from day 20.

----

We have been told that Dr. White is the last witness to be called by the defense, however, I don’t know if this is true. This is only what the press has reported. The reason I believe we still have some surprises is this:

- We still have the issue of un-reported fingerprints on a saline bag that have been identified but are not anyone that was in the house on the morning/afternoon of June 25th.

- We still have a missing (if it existed) secondary I.V. tubing.

- There is no toxicology for Propofol evident on the autopsy report for the brain, even though an autopsy is recorded as to have been done.

- No one has yet to mention the independent autopsy the Jackson Family ordered.

- There is missing video surveillance and other bodyguards present the early morning of June 25th, 2009 when Michael Jackson arrived home that either were not interviewed or who’s interviews were not recorded.

- There are other discrepancies among the prosecution witnesses that have not been addressed or investigated by the defense (at least that they’ve presented).

Hi, darksky -- I'm sorry if I did not make my post more clear when I was talking about the hot word in the DT's CIC when I referred to "addiction." I am not under the opinion that MJ was addicted to anything.

My (unclear, I guess) point was that if the DT was going to talk about "addiction," why didn't they proffer a similar opinion/question about the propofol that their client made available in stockpiled quarts & quarts for MJ every night? Why didn't they ask their addiction expert similar questions about the propofol dependency that they tried so eloquently to ask him about Demerol? It seems to make more sense to me that he may have been becoming dependent on (not addicted to) the milk, IMO. Just sayin.'

Please excuse my not being clear; I'll try to improve because I don't want anyone to misunderstand... and thanks for pointing it out to me.
icon7.gif
 
I really think Caylee's case has made many of us shell shocked but when I sit back and try to think rationally..instead of emotionally....these kind of jurors are very rare.

Now we have the ones who let Robert Durst go free because LE could never find the poor victim's head that HE cutoff. That verdict was a doozie too but years ago now and occasionally there have been others.

I really think that Walgren will pull it all together. We may not even know now why he asked a particular question but will know when he brings it up in CA.

I think we are going to see a lot of visuals in his CA. That is a great tool to use and helps the jury to bring everything together cohesively.

Now after watching this case for so long and seeing how the DT has tried to put MJ on trial if I was on that jury by now I would be getting very aggravated that this is the route they are taking. But that is just me. Blaming the victim is a slippery slope. It can help with getting a hung jury or it can backfire big time.

If I was Walgren I would remind them that this isn't the trial of Michael Jackson contrary to the DTs belief but the trial of Conrad Murray.

IMO

Thanks for the drink of cool water, oceanblueeyes. Your post most previous to this one was lucid and strong as well. Oh, me of little faith!!

And I haven't forgotten what a wonder Walgren is -- and Brazil is very fine as well. An amazing team -- those two are certainly one of the main reasons the DT is running so fast & loose, IMO. Plus their client's actions really are, IMO, a tuff act to support.

Thanks for that shot of C-12 (C = clarity and confidence in the 12 jurors!).

I feel much bettah now, I do!!
icon7.gif
 
If the jury remembers nothing else, they will remember it said that Propofol is not to be given in the home with out emergency personnel and equipment. And, they will remember every violation of medical practice that Conrad committed as outlined by the Medical Board Review witness. So much has been 'smoke and mirrors', but this information was very clear and definitive.
 
If the jury remembers nothing else, they will remember it said that Propofol is not to be given in the home with out emergency personnel and equipment. And, they will remember every violation of medical practice that Conrad committed as outlined by the Medical Board Review witness. So much has been 'smoke and mirrors', but this information was very clear and definitive.

BBM

Interestingly enough as well, the DT has not, with any of its witnesses, even attempted to defend what is bolded. Why? Because there is no defense and those alone are what caused MJ's death.
 
I know none of us want to see a short cross examination of Dr. White by Walgren but, honestly, he could make it very short indeed.

Walgreen: Dr. White, would you ever give propofol in a home or clinical setting with no assistance?
Walgreen: Dr. White, would you ever give propofol in a home or clinical setting with no monitoring equipment?
Walgreen: Dr. White, would you ever have multiple bottles of IV drugs and oral medications within reach of a patient that you were sedating?
Walgreen: Dr. White, would you ever leave a patient unattended after having administered propofol without having that patient completely out of sedation and verbally and physically responding to you?
Walgreen: Dr. White, you have answered no to all of the questions asked so far. Is there any amount of money that would convince you to change any of those answers to "yes"?

No further questions your honor.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion Dr. White may have more "crime scene" moments on the cross so in honor of his look-alike, Floyd Lawson, I leave you with a quote.

"The Andy Griffith Show" (1960)
Floyd Lawson: You know, everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Calvin Coolidge said that.
Andy Taylor: No, Floyd, that wasn't Calvin Coolidge that said that, it was Mark Twain.
Floyd Lawson: Then what did Calvin Coolidge say?

:escape:
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
899
Total visitors
1,056

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,846
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top